Yes, I know the sedevacantist line — no heretic popes other than questionable Honorarius, until John 23rd.

My book on usury (Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not — avoided by every sedevacantist publication) shows that there have been popes who derogated (Leo X) and then later abolished (Pius VIII) the Dogmatic law against usury — by abolishing its as a mortal sin and declaring the mortal sin itself as an act “not to be disturbed”! This was heresy. Pope Pius X signed off on this in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (compiled under him and published after his death).

My forthcoming book on the "Occult Renaissance Church of Rome" will offer evidence of the occult popes of Kabbalism.

The sedevacantist thesis was invented by those who seek to maintain ridiculous and in many cases pernicious myths about the pre-Vatican II Church and its popes. It is worse than nonsensical.

We can’t understand how the post-Conciliar Church came to be unless we investigate the pre-Vatican II popes of sodomy, usury and occult demonism who predate the Enlightenment and arose beginning in the Renaissance.

CAVEAT: Be forewarned that in the article below, citations of Judaic and rabbinic references to Moses were mostly for consumption by naive gentiles. Rabbinic Judaism is not a Mosaic religion, as the Victorian scholar Dr. Alexander McCaul, of Kings College London, had already ably demonstrated in his magisterial work, The Talmud Tested. Don’t be hoodwinked!Furthermore, this article neglects to report — in all but a trifling manner — on the actual Judaic traffic in Black slaves. For that suppressed history cf. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews.

Also note the reference toward the end of the article to the haskalah movement. The article does not inform the reader that this was a movement against the Talmud on the part of Judaics influenced by liberal gentiles and Christian missionaries.

Take a moment to ruminate on the words of the much maligned William Lloyd Garrison (below). He spoke as virtually all orthodox believers in the New Testament spoke and thought prior to the advent of the modern Judas Church. Today we have conservative priests and ministers thundering from their pulpits against Islam yet timid as mice when it comes to squeaking a word concerning the ideological heirs of Pharisaic Judaism, who Garrison rightly and courageously termed “monsters.” (Note to Bill O’Reilly and Judge Napolitano: it wasn’t the Romans who Garrison was terming “monsters”).

Judah P. Benjamin is widely believed to have been the Rothschild’s agent of surveillance over the Confederacy. After the war he deftly landed on his feet among the masonic elite of England, where he obtained a judgeship in that supposed fortress of abolition.

The hidden element in the War Between the States was Freemasonry, which in the North was still reeling from the blows it had received from the Anti-Mason Party, led by luminaries such as John Quincy Adams. Meanwhile, in the South, the most influential masonic Satanist in North America, Albert Pike, was a Confederate general. His “Scottish Rite Masonry of Southern Jurisdiction” was the most powerful masonic body in the western hemisphere. The post N. B. Forrest-era KKK was crafted along masonic lines, but then the same can be said for Joseph Smith’s Mormonism. [For information on Judaics in the Black slave trade and Freemasons in the Civil War cf. Revisionist Historynewsletters no. 54 and 60 (scroll down the web page to locate these issues)].

The 150th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the United States — Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment in late January 1865 — comes at an fraught moment in the history of race relations. Considering that black men are being killed by police at the same rate as they were lynched in the era of Jim Crow, it can be depressing to reflect on how many promises of 1865, not to mention 1776, have not yet been fulfilled. But it can also be edifying to probe into some of the lesser-known aspects of the story of how the emancipation of slaves was finally accomplished. The history of the abolitionist movement is of more than antiquarian interest: it should serve to inspire us to finish the job today.

Nobody can argue that the balance of the Jewish record on the question of American slavery and the Civil War is anything but regrettable. If the career of Confederate Secretary of War Judah P. Benjamin were not enough, the overwhelming complacency of the antebellum Jewish community, even in the North, provides a record sufficiently embarrassing to warrant official acknowledgement — even, perhaps, reparation.

But there were American Jews before the war who risked everything to fight the South’s “peculiar institution.” Familiar with the story of Exodus, they knew it was not actually all that peculiar. Now, 150 years after the end of slavery, when the unfinished work of emancipation and Reconstruction is announced daily in the headlines, it is worth lighting a yahrtzeit candle to those Jews who found in Judaism the imperative to line up, every time, with the oppressed. Before Selma, before socialism, the Jewish abolitionists were the first to map that once-fertile, now neglected terrain: the intersection of the identities of radical, American and Jew.

By the middle of December, 1860, the Union was disintegrating. Abraham Lincoln had won every state in the North and none in the South. South Carolina had just elected delegates to a secession convention and the other Southern states seemed poised to follow. The lame-duck president, James Buchanan, issued a desperate proclamation, “in view of the present distracted and dangerous condition of our country,” declaring January 4th, 1861, a nation day of prayer. He asked that “the People assemble on that day, according to their several forms of worship, to keep it as a solemn Fast.”

On the appointed day, the congregation of B’nei Jeshurun in New York saw Morris Jacob Raphall, a Swedish-born rabbi, rise to the bima. “How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments–how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin?” Raphall asked of Brooklyn minister Henry Ward Beecher, brother of the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Considering that the Patriarchs themselves owned slaves, Raphall continued, “Does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?

Raphall’s sermon divided American Jews. “I felt exceedingly humbled, I may say outraged, by the sacrilegious words of the Rabbi,” Michael Heilprin, a veteran of the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, wrote in the New York Tribune. “Must the stigma of Egyptian principles be fastened on the people of Israel by Israelitish lips themselves?”

In the decades before the influx of Jews from Eastern Europe, there was no organized Jewish community, and thus no identifiably Jewish position on the most burning political question of the day. Surveying the views on slavery of American religious groups in 1853, the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society had reported that Jews “deem it their policy to have every one choose whichever side he may deem best to promote his own interest and the welfare of his country…They do not interfere in any discussion which is not material to their religion.”

Yet the report concluded with a sly taunt, implying that the question of slavery was perhaps not as immaterial to Judaism as many of its American adherents preferred to admit. “The objects of so much mean prejudice and unrighteous oppression as the Jews have been for ages,” the report lamented, “surely they, it would seem, more than any other denomination, ought to be the enemies of caste and the friends of universal freedom.”

Jews in the New World participated in slavery at least as fully and profitably as their Gentile neighbors. Jews in New Amsterdam owned slaves within a decade of their 1654 arrival, and their brethren in Newport, Rhode Island, were involved in the slave trade right up until the War of Independence, in which several slaves of the city’s Jews were forced to fight. In the South, being rich enough to own slaves and not owning any “carried it with it social and business disadvantages,” the historian Max Kohler wrote in 1897, while in the North outright abolitionism was discouraged by “business and trade policy,” which “rendered such avowals inexpedient.”

American Jewish leaders of the mid-19th century were concerned, above all, with expediency. The most prominent Jew in the United States, Mordecai Manuel Noah — a former consul to the Kingdom of Tunis and the mercurial incubator of the “Ararat” scheme to resettle world Jewry on an island in the Niagara River–began his career as an opponent of the expansion of slavery. “How can Americans be engaged in this traffic,” he once asked, regarding the slave trade, “men whose birthright is liberty, whose eminent peculiarity is freedom?” But with age Noah became such an outspoken opponent of emancipation that the first-ever black newspaper in America, Freedom’s Journal, was specifically founded to counter Noah’s venom, and William Lloyd Garrison was moved to describe him as a “Shylock” and a “lineal descendant of the monsters who nailed Jesus to the cross.” When Noah died in 1851, Morris Jacob Raphall delivered the eulogy at his funeral.

The views of Noah’s successors as leaders of the fledgling Jewish community were less demagogic, but just as wishy-washy on the question of slavery. Isaac Leeser of Philadelphia, the first translator of the Tanakh into English and a man whom the Library of Congress has dubbed “the architect of American Jewish life,” agreed with Raphall that slavery was legal according to Jewish law, but cautioned that “our synagogues…are no places for political discussions.” Isaac Mayer Wise, the guiding spirit of Reform Judaism in the United States, refused to condemn slavery as a moral or religious wrong, and when war broke out, Wise wrote an editorial for his influential newspaper, The Israelite, titled, “Silence Our Policy.”

Among those Jews not content with such a policy was Ernestine Rose, a dazzling orator, utopian and freethinker born in Poland — “I was a rebel at the age of five,” she said — who traveled throughout the United States condemning slavery and agitating for women’s rights. Once, in the South, a slaveholder told Rose he would have had her tarred and feathered if she were a man.

During the mini-Civil-War known as “Bleeding Kansas” in the mid-1850s, three Jews accompanied John Brown on his raids against pro-slavery settlers. The archives of the American Jewish Historical Society contain a 1903 letter in which one of them, the Viennese-born August Bondi (another veteran of the 1848 revolution), recalled an exchange between himself and Theodore Wiener during one of the posse’s first attacks. As they followed Brown up a hill to assault a Border Ruffian camp, Bondi wrote, “Wiener puffed like a steamboat, hurrying behind me. I called out to him, ‘Nu, was meinen Sie jetzt.’ [‘Now, what do you think of this?’] His answer, ‘Was soll ich meinen, sof odom muves.’ [‘What shall I think of it? The end of man is death.’]”

Many specifically invoked the Jewish experience itself to argue against slavery. “If anyone, it is the Jew, above all others who should have the most burning and irreconcilable hatred for the ‘peculiar institution’ of the South,” said Bernard Felsenthal of Chicago, later one of the first Zionists in America, who once rejected a job as rabbi in Mobile, Alabama, because it would have required acquiescence to slavery. Gustav Gottheil, another early Zionist, was still in England at the time of Raphall’s remarks, but responded with two sermons quickly published as Moses Versus Slavery. “How can we be silent,” Gottheil asked, when the Torah is invoked to condone an institution of which it is, in fact, “one grand consistent utterance of condemnation”?

One of the most eloquent Jewish denunciations of slavery was delivered rather elliptically: in 1859, an aspiring scholar named Moses Mielziner earned his Ph.D. from the University of Giessen with a dissertation on “Slavery Among the Ancient Hebrews,” which attempted to show that the Israelites had treated their slaves with some degree of decency. The contrast with slavery as brutally practiced in the United States was only implied, but in April of 1861, the month the Civil War began, the American Presbyterian Review published his essay in translation, presumably in response to the debate Raphall had provoked. “No religion and no legislation of ancient times could in its inmost spirit be so decidedly opposed to slavery as was the Mosaic,” Mielziner wrote, “and no people, looking at its own origin, would feel itself more strongly called to the removal of slavery than the people of Israel.” Judaism, in his view, “sharply emphasized the high dignity of man” and “insisted not only upon the highest justice, but also upon the tenderest pity and forbearance, especially towards the necessitous and the unfortunate.” Surely the Jewish people, who had themselves “smarted under the yoke of slavery, and had become a nation only by emancipation,” would be stalwart opponents of “the unnatural state of slavery, by which human nature is degraded.”

The most courageous Jewish response to Raphall’s sermon came neither from Europe nor the North, but from the dais of a synagogue in Baltimore, Maryland, a slave state. Rabbi David Einhorn, born in Bavaria, had fled to the United States in 1851 after the Emperor Franz-Josef closed Einhorn’s shul, fearing the growing Reform movement’s ties to the late revolutionary upheaval. Once in Baltimore, Einhorn quickly rose to prominence, and in deference to his congregation, largely avoided the slavery issue.

But by January, 1861, after Raphall’s inflammatory sermon in New York, Einhorn felt he could no longer keep silent. “The Jew has special cause to be conservative,” Einhorn allowed, noting his audience’s distaste for politics in the pulpit, “and he is doubly and triply so in a country which grants him all the spiritual and material privileges he can wish for.” While sharing the congregation’s “patriotic sentiments” for America, Einhorn said that to allow Jewish law to be “disgraced….and in the holy place!” would be to jeopardize the soul of Judaism itself:

“The spotless morality of the Mosaic principles is our pride and our fame, and our weapon since thousands of years. This weapon we cannot forfeit without pressing a mighty sword into the hands of our foes. This pride and renown, the only one which we possess, we will not and dare not allow ourselves to be robbed of. This would be unscrupulous, prove the greatest triumph of our adversaries and our own destruction, and would be paying too dearly for the fleeting, wavering favor of the moment. Would it not then be justly said, as in fact it has already been done, in consequence of [the Raphall sermon]: Such are the Jews! Where they are oppressed, they boast of the humanity of their religion; but where they are free, their Rabbis declare slavery to have been sanctioned by God.”

For such provocations and others Einhorn was, like Rose, threatened with tarring and feathering. A week after the war began, he and his family exiled themselves to Philadelphia.

Einhorn — a man with much to lose — saw an American Jewish community looking after its own short-term interests, willing to be silent about the oppression of others, frightened into political quiescence. He believed in a morality beyond mere self-preservation: influenced by Haskalah, the German-Jewish enlightenment, Einhorn thought that Jews were a people only insofar as they were united by common ethical beliefs.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

The Auschwitz bandwagon has rolled onto our television and Internet screens and newspaper front pages once again. It never actually leaves, so perhaps it is more accurate to say that this week it is more present than usual.

You don’t believe we’re ruled by halacha (Talmudic law)? In that case, how is it that whatever befalls The Holy People of Counterfeit “Israel” is branded the supreme evil of the cosmos, and whatever happens to the eternally skimmed (we the goyim), counts for slightly less than nothing?

You never heard of it, correct? Why is that? It was a torture camp; a death camp paid for in part with American taxpayer money. But you know nothing of it. Israeli allies under Israeli direction killed and tortured the Lebanese in that El Khiam concentration camp. All of the victims were goyim, not Holy People. Now do you understand why El Khiam is unsung and unknown?

El Khiam was liberated by Hezbollah, the people Americans are taught to hate because they are the only formidable armed resistance against Israeli conquest and land theft in the Middle East. Unlike Sunni Saudi Arabia which is allied with the Israelis, Shiite Hezbollah has not cut a deal with the US or the Israelis. This is why Assad in Syria and the government of Iran are attacked and sanctioned -- they are the principal, and practically the only significant allies of Hezbollah.

“...the kingdom now supports Islamist rebels in Syria who often fight alongside Qaeda groups like the Nusra Front. The Saudis say they have little choice...they believe they must now back whoever can help them defeat Mr. Assad’s forces and his Iranian allies.” (New York Times, January 5, 2014, p. A10).

Saudi Arabia, which maintains a compact with its clerics who furnish the murderous Wahhabist-Salafist theology which drives ISIS and al-Qaeda, is our precious “ally,” while Hezbollah, Iran and Assad’s Syria we are taught to hate, sanction and prepare to do war with.

We are seeing the makings of another war unfolding this week, which the Israelis are instigating in league with their covert Saudi-based Wahhabist-Salafist Sunni terrorist allies; a war intended to finish off Assad, the protector of the Christian population in Syria, and in Lebanon to “mow the lawn” (an Israeli euphemism for periodic massacres of Arab civilians so as to “tame” these lesser humans).

Today, Jan. 28, in retaliation for the Israeli attack (although the mainstream media will not patently report it as retaliation), Hezbollah struck an Israeli convoy, with the difference being that whereas the US media published almost no photos of the Israeli attack nine days ago, today graphic and grisly photos of the wounded Israelis and the wreckage of their vehicles are plastered all over the US media.

To summarize, the Israelis launched an unprovoked bombing raid on Syria, killing Hezbollah personnel and an Iranian general. When representatives of those victims fight back, we have the situation today, as decreed by “our” media: “Hezbollah launches attack on Israel.”

One envisions the shaking heads and indignation of all of those millions of Fox News habitués and “American Sniper” movie viewers, who are thinking, “Those damned Arabs are at it again! Go Israel!”

With an Israeli national election weeks away, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was anxious to initiate a tit-for-tat exchange with Hezbollah which he knew the US media would suggest was “an act of Arab terror,” which in turn provides Netanyahu the opportunity to gain more popularity with the generally bloodthirsty Israeli electorate by sparking a war with Lebanon and Syria.

All this might very well precipitate another genocidal Israeli “lawn mowing” of Lebanese civilians (last witnessed in 2006), and the opportunity to further assist the al-Qaeda connected Nusra front in Syria in finally crushing the Syrian-Christian population’s ally, Assad, and instituting Nusra’s Sharia law in Syria, which Right wing Republicans claim to oppose in the US but support in Syria -- by means of their Israeli-approved goal of overthrowing Assad.

According to a statement on his Facebook page, Russian-Judaic Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, stated that “Israel” should respond to Hezbollah’s retaliation, “in a very harsh and disproportionate manner.”

We’ll wager that Lieberman’s advocacy of a “disproportionate” attack is a reference to his goal of another massacre of Lebanese. Lieberman’s political ally, Ayelet Shaked, a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament), spelled it out: “bombing a civilian population is justified when civilians give shelter to evil” (Jewish Daily Forward, Jan. 26, 2015).

“Evil” in this context signifies any goy who raises his head against Israeli occupation and mass murder.

Israelis have a license to kill Arabs. They can “Auschwitz” them as much as they like, on this, the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Monday, January 19, 2015

We have an antidote to Republican Party activist Clint Eastwood’s immensely popular and enthralling neocon propaganda film, “American Sniper.”

Our review is titled “A Sheep Dog Tricked into Serving the Wolves.”

It will be published in Revisionist History newsletter no. 76 and mailed to subscribers later this month, but we think Eastwood’s movie is potentially too damaging to our nation’s best interest to count on gaining more newsletter subscribers as a means for getting the review into circulation.

Therefore, we’re offering it in a pdf file that will be e-mailed for a modest fee of $1.50. The length is 3800 words in ten pages.

There will be those who will say that an Academy Award-nominated movie directed by a Hollywood legend is not going to be dented by an obscure revisionist journalist in Idaho.

Here’s our view: you keep punching as long as you have the strength to do so and let God decide how and where the punches will land. You keep playing football when you’re down 19-7 with 44 seconds left in the game.

You dream the impossible dream and you fight the unbeatable odds with the talent and resources God has bequeathed, and on the day that you die you will know that you got in the ring; you were a contender.

We do the best we can. The rest is up to God. He's been known to cut some mighty big players down to size. If we don't team with Him, who will? If it's not our responsibility, then whose responsibility is it?

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Editor’s Note: Dr. Robert Faurisson, the courageous octogenarian dean of European revisionists who has been repeatedly beaten, prosecuted, jailed and heavily fined in France for publishing doubts about the authenticity of the sacred relics of Holocaustianity, offers his insights into the situation in France in the aftermath of the attacks in Paris.

These killings in Paris, at the office of Charlie Hebdo and elsewhere – with 20dead in all, among whom five were Jews – rightly arouse
widespread indignation but Jewish organizations have immediately exploited
this indignation for their benefit. They forget that, in large part, it’s been
under the pressure of international and French-Jewish groups that France
has hastily engaged in all sorts of military expeditions causing so many deaths
in the Arab-Muslim world. They forget this country’s responsibility for the
creation of the bogus "State of Israel" – soon afterwards arming it with nuclear weapons
– and in the appalling fate of the Palestinian people since at least 1948; as well as the
presence of Benjamin Netanyahu at Sunday’s rally in Paris which was an
affront to an entire Arab-Muslim world. Jewish organizations in France live in anger and war; that being the case,
how can they be surprised if their adversaries live in anger and war as well?

Such killings may bring to mind a number of murders
committed by Jews who subsequently became “heroes” of Jewish history. On
February 25, 1994 Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli army physician armed with an
assault rifle, shot dead 24 Muslim worshipers and wounded 125 at the Cave of
the Patriarchs in Hebron before being subdued and killed there himself. Goldstein's nearby tomb is a pilgrimage site for
many Jews.

The hysteria we are witnessing now in France, in this
month of January 2015, has a precedent: that of May 1990 and the “profanation of theCarpentras
cemetery” when Judaic graves were said to have been vandalized. It was the exploitation of that event that made it possible to
intimidate the French parliament into enacting a law called “The Fabius-Gayssot Act” of July 13, 1990 — punishing by a term of imprisonment of from
one month to one year and a fine of up to 300,000 francs (45,000 euros), along
with several other sanctions — those who dispute “the existence of crimes
against humanity” (that is, essentially, crimes against Jews), as defined and
punished in 1945-1946 by a body that the winners of the recent war had dared to
name the “International Military Tribunal” (three lies in three words)of Nuremberg. This law, totally contrary to the
French constitution, came into effect by appearing in the Journal Officiel de la République Française of July 14, 1990,
anniversary of the storming of the Bastille.

It was due to a fabrication on the part of the Socialist president of the French parliament, Jewish millionaire Laurent Fabius, which he conveyed to a national television audience, alleging that a Jewish cadaver in the Carpentras cemeteryhad
been taken out of its grave and impaled through the rectum with a pole — that the French were stampeded into outrage and indignation which was cleverly exploited: Catholic authorities rang the great bell
of Notre-Dame in Paris as a sign of an extraordinary sacrilege having occurred. The Socialist French President François Mitterrand led a
march through the center of Paris at the head of the vast crowd of demonstrators. We have now, on January 11, 2015, seen the same scenario repeated in the
same place: the Catholic Archbishop having taken the initiative of ringing the Notre-Dame’s bells, and Laurent Fabius, architect of the suppression of the rights of freedom of expression of revisionists in France, in the front rank of the “protesting” dignitaries marching through the streets — our Socialist President François Hollande together with Netanyahu — all supposedly in the cause of freedom of expression.

Moreover, those Jewish organizations pose as being in support of freedom of opinion and expression
but, in reality, what they are demanding is increased repression against
“Holocaust denial." Revisionism has made significant progress in recent years
here in France, thanks especially to the Internet. Certain Jewish organizations therefore, are working for laws aimed at the censorship of the Internet, of the Ferench-African comedian Dieudonné (who has some 80 legal
proceedings pending against him), of the revisionists and of a number of other
unbowed men and women.

In conclusion and for want of time, I shall allow myself just three
remarks in response to the questions which you sent by e-mail: 1) the name Charlie-Hebdo
has, apparently, nothing to do with Charles de Gaulle; it comes, I believe,
from the Peanuts character Charlie
Brown.

2) Gayssot is the surname of a former Communist MP and government
minister, and the Fabius-Gayssot Act is sometimes called the “Faurisson Law” or
“Lex Faurissoniana”; I have lost count of the times I’ve been ordered to pay fines
or damages on the grounds of this law; other revisionists have been thrown into
prison or, like Vincent Reynouard, a father of nine, will be returning to prison. For my part, I’ve endured ten physical assaults – of which eight took place in France. French police have carried out numerous searches
and seizures, or attempted seizures, at my home. These police have often refused to
protect me in the presence of threats and danger.

3) I hope to be able, before long, to
send you an English version of my nine-page article (with illustrations) which I wrote on December 31, 2014. It is entitled: In 70 years, no
forensic study proving the existence and operation of the “Nazi gas chambers”!

I dedicated this study to Professor Ben Zion Dinur
(1884-1973), founder of Yad Vashem in 1953, who was forced to resign in 1959 for having
preferred scientific history to Judaic memory.